“Why are the voices of spring silent in countless corners of America?”
With this melancholic question, Rachel Carson wondered what was causing the sounds of all the animals and insects that populated, or at least should have populated, the American countryside to disappear from the airwaves. The title of her book, Silent Spring, is emblematic, becoming the manifesto of the environmental movement that brings nature back to the center of our world, undermining man’s overbearing tendency to consume, deface, and carelessly drain the nature that hosts him. At a time when the consequences of human actions on the environment were ignored and warnings were still timid, unheeded voices, when the coexistence of man and nature was still only a philosophical current rather than a useful tool for the community, Carson (who in 1962 was writing about the harmful effects of DDT and pesticides on the environment) perhaps did not yet know that her essay would shake the consciences of many, starting a silent revolution that continues today, more powerful than ever. Organic farming has its origins in the second half of the 20th century and is still today the most powerful symbol of this movement.
What is organic farming, in brief
Organic farming is regulated at European level by EU Regulation 2018/848, which defines it as “a comprehensive system of farm management and food production based on the interaction between best practices in environmental and climate action, a high level of biodiversity, the preservation of natural resources, and the application of strict animal welfare criteria and strict production standards that meet the preferences of a growing number of consumers for products obtained using natural substances and processes.” Without going into technical details, we can say that organic farming is based on certain principles such as reducing the use of pesticides, excluding synthetic chemicals, excluding the use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), restricting the use of pesticides and herbicides, and crop rotation. The aim is to protect the environment by improving soil fertility, preserving habitats and restoring biodiversity, caring for animal welfare, and meeting the demands and preferences of consumers who are placing increasing importance on these aspects when making their purchases.
Unstoppable growth and a new consumer awareness
In 2024, the organic sector in Italy showed robust growth in the domestic market, recording a +5.7% increase in sales compared to the previous year. This positive trend was largely driven by domestic consumption, which reached almost €5.2 billion, while the value of “out-of-home” consumption stood at €1.3 billion. At the same time, exports of Italian organic agri-food products also continued to expand. In 2024, exports reached €3.9 billion, marking a significant increase of +7%. This growth is not just a matter of numbers, but reflects a profound change in purchasing habits. Today’s consumers are motivated by more than just ‘healthy eating’.
But what motivates consumers to buy organic products?
First of all, 27% of Italian consumers believe that organic products are safer for their health than conventional options, and also perceive them as more sustainable. In fact, 23% of consumers believe that they are more environmentally friendly, 10% believe that they promote animal welfare, and a further 10% refer to social sustainability, meaning that they support small producers. Today’s buyers are not only looking for products free of chemical residues, but are making conscious choices that go beyond individual foods, moving towards agriculture that respects nature and long-term health. Organic products aim to be an option that responds to these demands, further consolidating their presence in consumers’ daily lives.
Environmental benefits: a broken promise?
Does eating organic really reduce our negative impact on the environment, or is it simply a marketing tool that hides complexities and compromises, conveniently concealed by a green label on a plastic package? This question is difficult to answer.
There are several studies on this subject, many of which seem to view organic farming as a more sustainable practice, but there is no clear answer and at present it cannot be said with certainty that one method is better than the other. One study considers the impact on CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and the amount of land required for cultivation. CO2 emissions are virtually identical, but while organic farming consumes less energy and uses fewer pesticides, conventional farming requires less land to produce a certain amount of product. This second aspect, which may seem insignificant, is actually crucial to the point of tipping the balance slightly in favor of conventional agriculture. A meta-analysis comparing numerous studies clearly highlights the difficulty of assessing organic farming as more sustainable than conventional farming. Five aspects closely linked to environmental degradation (greenhouse gas emissions, soil exploitation, eutrophication potential, acidification potential, energy use) are evaluated and related to six food categories (cereals, legumes, fruit, vegetables, dairy products, eggs, and meat). Organic farming would only significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to fruit production and energy use for the production of cereals, legumes, dairy products, and eggs. For the rest, it would have the same or even greater impact than conventional farming methods.
Pesticides: comparing organic and conventional farming
One of the cornerstones of sustainable organic farming is undoubtedly the reduced use of pesticides. Reduced, not zero, as many people think. By law, fields used for organic farming cannot be treated with most synthetic pesticides, but this does not mean that organic fields are not treated at all, rather that there is a specific list of substances that can be used. Like it or not, pesticides are essential for agriculture, given the multitude of insects, mammals, birds, spiders, bacteria, viruses, and fungi that feed on fruit and vegetables. The substances allowed are often of plant origin, such as beeswax for protection during pruning, or vegetable oils, pyrethrins extracted from chrysanthemums, and azadirachtin for their insecticidal effects. Some products, on the other hand, are common in both organic and conventional agriculture, such as copper, the fungicide par excellence.
It’s true that copper is often used excessively, despite the maximum limit of 6 kg per hectare per year, but even though it is considered a “natural” product, it is still a heavy metal that pollutes the soil and has proven toxicity to humans. Indeed, there are fewer pesticide residues on organic products than on conventional ones, but the doses found on conventional products are still well below the maximum permitted limits. This is confirmed by the thousands of analyses carried out each year by the European Community. It is interesting to note that only 0.7% of Italian samples do not comply, i.e., exceed the maximum residue limit, while 5.6% of imported product samples do not comply. Currently, therefore, the health risks associated with pesticides are very low and do not cause any concern, whether in conventional or organic products.
Is the naturality of organic products real?
One of the many arguments put forward by supporters of organic farming is that organic products are more natural precisely because the cultivation techniques used are different from traditional techniques. Examples include the exclusion of synthetic chemical pesticides and the reduction of the list of permitted pesticides, as well as crop rotation to maintain soil fertility and productivity over time. Animals must be raised in conditions that respect their welfare, with access to open spaces, and their diet must be based on organic feed. The use of hormones and antibiotics is also strictly limited. Agriculture and animal husbandry are natural or unnatural depending on how you look at them. Everything in the fruit and vegetable section, organic or otherwise, is the result of careful human selection that has been going on for centuries or, for some vegetables, for millennia, because hectares of land cultivated with a single plant species (selected for height, weight, number of kernels, resistance to disease and lodging) would not exist without human intervention. Whether we want to consider humans as part of nature and therefore everything that comes from humans as natural by extension is a philosophical question that I leave to the readers.
The productivity dilemma and the challenge of the future
It remains clear that the divergence between organic and conventional farming is not as wide and defined as commonly believed. Despite some environmental benefits, there are still numerous critical issues surrounding organic farming. The question of productivity has not been resolved. The yield gap, on average between 8% and 25% less than conventional farming, continues to be the main obstacle to a total transition to organic farming on a global scale. Its lower efficiency per hectare could lead to the need to convert more land to agriculture, with the risk of deforestation and loss of natural habitats, contrary to the desire to preserve biodiversity and the environment. The debate is still evolving. Studies and improvements in agricultural techniques and technologies continue, investments in the agri-food sector are increasing to promote an ecological transition, and there is a growing awareness that sometimes all that glitters is not gold. This is precisely why alternatives such as agroecology, precision agriculture, and regenerative agriculture are being explored, which aim to overcome the limitations of organic and conventional agriculture without sacrificing their strengths.
It is clear, however, that this debate does not benefit the environment in any way.
So, as consumers, what can we do to make a difference to the environment?
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), about one-third of all food produced worldwide is lost or wasted. In Europe, more than 59 million tons of food are wasted every year, or 132 kg per person. Food waste accounts for 16% of greenhouse gas emissions from the EU food system. Among the many tips, some more useful than others, I would like to share what is perhaps the most important: more conscious and moderate consumption, targeted purchases, and less food waste can perhaps make more of a difference than any agricultural practice.